A federal judge has rejected claims of grand jury misconduct and accusations that prosecutors unfairly targeted Democrats in an ongoing criminal investigation of Alabama's two-year colleges.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene said lawyers for state Rep. Sue Schmitz, D-Toney, failed to offer any evidence to support claims of prosecutorial misconduct or selective prosecution, accusations that other defense lawyers have repeated when criticizing U.S. Attorney Alice Martin's investigation of corruption in the college system. Greene noted defense claims that prosecutors improperly influenced the grand jury.

"The conclusion appears to be based on little more than Ms. Schmitz's self-serving expressions of disbelief and incredulity that she has been indicted," Greene wrote.

The rulings, issued over the past several days, are significant because they dismiss Schmitz' claims of prosecutorial misconduct as "unsubstantiated allegations" and "conjecture." Those claims have been repeated by Birmingham lawyer Doug Jones and others representing legislators tied to the colleges, who have argued that Schmitz's case proves their concerns that prosecutors acted improperly and misused the grand jury in a broader effort to hurt Democrats. Jones has made similar claims of misconduct in former Gov. Don Siegelman' prosecution.

"Ms. Schmitz must first establish a colorable claim of prosecutorial misconduct. She simply has not done so," Greene wrote in one ruling.

Schmitz faces trial on federal criminal charges of fraud and mail fraud, accusing her of taking more than $175,000 in two-year college pay for work she did not do. Her trial is scheduled to begin next week, although the case likely will be rescheduled because former system Chancellor Roy Johnson has been introduced as a witness against Schmitz.

Greene wrote critically of defense lawyers' motions claiming improper conduct by prosecutors, noting a failure to meet the minimum threshold of evidence supporting the claims; questioning the "remarkably broad" requests for more information so defense lawyers could continue arguing the claims; and citing the lawyers' "incomplete understanding" of federal criminal procedure.

Greene summarizes his frustration with the defense allegations in a ruling denying motions seeking extraordinary production of materials from the government - in one case, asking prosecutors to "produce a copy of each and every document, not otherwise requested, that references Ms. Schmitz in any capacity, regardless of its source."

"No single statement with regard to Ms. Schmitz's discovery motion could be more telling," Greene wrote, adding this request "is the drift net of fishing expeditions.

"The court's earlier observations with respect to Ms. Schmitz's incomplete understanding of criminal discovery is amply demonstrated by this request," he wrote.

Greene also granted an unusual request by prosecutors to unseal their motion challenging claims they acted improperly before the grand jury. Prosecutors argued that defense lawyers misrepresented grand jury testimony, left out significant portions that undermined the misconduct argument and mischaracterized statements by prosecutors before the jurors.

Greene said he could find no evidence to support claims that the grand jury process was misused. "A review of the government's response to the motion adequately demonstrates that the witnesses actually affirmed the accuracy of the comments Ms. Schmitz found objectionable," he wrote.

In the government's unsealed motion, prosecutors offer grand jury testimony from witnesses who say Schmitz rarely was seen at her two-year college job and, at one point, she created eight months worth of time sheets to claim she had worked.

Greene also found that Schmitz's lawyers failed to back up claims that her arrest at her Toney home was evidence of a bad faith prosecution. He said prosecutors have the right to arrest a defendant instead of asking them to surrender, and he said he saw nothing improper with her being handcuffed and booked.

"It is not evidence of outrageous conduct," Greene wrote.

Schmitz also offered no evidence to support claims that her case is similar to concerns raised by Siegelman and others that they were targets of selective prosecution. Schmitz's lawyers sent Greene a report produced by U.S. House Democrats that raised questions about Siegelman's prosecution, but offered no evidence to support political prosecution claims.

Greene said he would not grant defense requests for more discovery based on those concerns unless they could provide evidence to substantiate the allegations.

"The court, after careful review of the law and Ms. Schmitz's submission, finds that she has failed to produce any evidence and if what she has produced were to be considered evidence, she has failed to establish a colorable claim that her prosecution was initiated upon an invidious denial of equal protection," Greene wrote.

Schmitz incorrectly claims several other similar cases could have been prosecuted, but she was targeted because she is a Democrat, Greene ruled. He said the examples her lawyers offered have nothing to do with her case, or the crimes she is accused of committing while working at the college system's CITY program for troubled teenagers.

"Ms. Schmitz is not charged with working as an employee of the CITY program while a state legislator. She is charged with obtaining her salary by fraud," he wrote.